Staying Clear

To answer the important question “Does Clearing cancel training?” all you need to do as an auditor is clear someone without training him and then say to him, “All right. Go out and clear people.”

You’ll get a blank stare.

Why?

Because Auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the parts of life which is in itself something new in the universe. Even OTs don’t have auditing skill since there have never been any auditors behind them.

There is such a thing as learning. There are such things as data.

The fact is, that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man.

Now a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there’s the difference.

Being clear gives one the potential of being and makes the being rather easy, and fun. Further, being cleared makes it possible to continue to be something. There’s nothing wrong with being clear. A person ought to be. The state is so valuable several hundreds of millions of people in the past 2,500 years have concentrated on nothing else.

But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.

Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.

Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.

If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.

Oddly enough, the best time to study auditing is when you’re aberrated—when the thing looks impossible, when you can achieve subjective reality on the grimness of it.

The best things a person can do are to (1) get trained and (2) get cleared. Auditors will always be senior to clears. Always. That became very obvious in the 19th ACC. People who weren’t clear created clears.

If a person gets cleared first, he can, of course, learn very rapidly how to be a good Scientologist. If he is to be a very good being he will be both a good auditor and a clear. That combination cannot be beaten.

If we had only clears and no auditors we’d have another slump ahead. Scientology is not in the experience of anyone’s back track. It is itself. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all factors of life. Scientology could not have happened earlier because there was not enough livingness to study. We have arrived near bottom.

There are people getting cleared now all over the world. Just remember that you share the agreement of the society in which you live. You’ll have to be able to audit to skillfully handle aberrated persons. And it will take a lot of auditors to have a cleared society.

Right now it’s all right to keep your eye on that first dynamic and get clear. You should. But when, suddenly, you find you’ve achieved clear, remember when I tell you this one thing:

There are eight dynamics.

You cannot stay clear unless you solve things by the equation of the optimum solution: The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Failing to so solve things dug you in to where you were in the first place.

Scientology got you out.

Stay out by knowing Scientology well.

I look forward to seeing your bright, smiling face, clear or not, in the Academy or an ACC, or both, in D.C., or London, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa. A Clear world to be, needs you as a good and skilled Scientologist.

And that’s how you’re going to help me.

Okay?

RON HUBBARD

P.S. When I solve a case I always ask the pc for one unnamed favor. I’ve never called these favors in. The favor I tell you now for the first time: Whatever else you are, be a good Scientologist and help me clear these Earth people.

Related

78 thoughts on “Staying Clear”

Very true. The fact is, unless one does get trained, one just won’t make it, no matter how one deludes themselves into thinking they will as an OT VII or OT VIII. Training guarantees Freedom.

“Auditor training is highly recommended whether you plan to audit professionally or not. “Getting trained,” as a Solo auditor, does not simply mean to do the Solo courses. Training up to the level of a Class IV/NED Auditor who knows his business is the most positive assurance there is that you will make it to OT.

It’s all right for these guys in lower grades to be pcs—that’s fine. But there comes a point as you move up the Grade Chart when your lack of auditing skill starts hitting you in the teeth and you won’t make it to OT at all. You’re walking straight into the tiger’s lair on New OT VII and you’d better be good! …

The plain truth of it is, if anybody is really going to make it to OT he has to know how to audit. That’s the long and short of it.” LRH (HCOB 27 Dec 82, Training & OT)

In an earlier article we posted an LRH quote where he states something like it is the point where a person can handle another person’s case through auditing, that he can then conquer his own case (my wording). I have found that to be so true, as the more I audit others and help them along, the easier my own case is to audit and move along The Bridge. The training as an auditor, and the application of that training to others, just sends you on a personal rocket ride.

It is so true that half the gains come from training (and applying that training). 🙂

Yes, I recall that quote; it’s one I found and posted on Facebook and in a comment on one of the threads. Here’s another good one:

“The preclear moves safely on the proper Bridge and somewhere along the line must be trained in the classifications that match his grade. Then (and only then) can he make it all the way.” LRH (HCO PL 5 May 1965 II Classification, Gradation And Awareness Chart)

Chris:The fact is, unless one does get trained, one just won’t make it, no matter how one deludes themselves into thinking they will as an OT VII or OT VIII.

What do you mean by “won’t make it”? Most certainly training is very important, but I’m afraid I don’t connect this with not making it … in fact it comes across as quite invalidative to those who are auditing on these upper levels.

Obviously you don’t mean living life, as lots of people exist living the life they they want to live and are happy with it never having heard of Scientology before.

There is nothing beyond OT VIII that has been released, and according to LRH this level shakes the rafters and hinges of this universe. Many with no more than an HQS and Solo Auditors Course have made it to that point. OT VIII Series I delineates on the specific freedoms available to a being who has completed OT VII, and is quite a different picture than what you have presented here.

Third, I know of not one single person who ever recalled his education/training from a previous lifetime. I certainly recall none of mine and I’m well into Solo NOTs. So in my book, your take on “not making it” is pure speculation (I’m fully aware what LRH had stated, but it’s not the same as your post) as you might consider my theory in the same light in that I feel one could possibly get buried if the Solo NOTs case remains unhandled by the time of passing away and join the ranks of that what had been handling on that level. To me, it’s a matter of extreme urgency to get through those levels, OT VII and OT VIII, at this stage more important than anything else.

Got it. And yes, you’re right. I’m not talking about just “living life”. Many are doing just that, as you say. And it’s fun. And yes, I agree it’s urgent to get through those levels. But…

I’m glad that many with no more than an HQS and Solo Course under their belts have made it to OT VII and VIII. But the sole guarantee of them staying there is their training. Training is so vital a component to Total Freedom that it alone guarantees one will make it all the way. So while it may be nice and grand to be an OT VII or VIII completion, and the abilities far and away amazing, to fully walk the road one will need to be fully trained. As you say, you are fully aware of all that LRH has said on it, so you know that this viewpoint aligns with his. You can assume it to be speculation only, and if it shakes any stable data, it might just come from a lack of training.

As for that first issue of OT VIII, you know my view on OT VIII, that if the church had to re-do it three times, they certainly don’t have any LRH version of OT VIII. So that issue I view as highly suspect, and even if sourced from LRH notes, it’s an RTRC/DM abomination. Besides, it would not negate or diminish anything LRH has said about the vital necessity of training in the scheme of things.

So, let me rephrase the comment I made that you object to: unless one does get trained, even if one has “made it”, one won’t stay out, and the “making it” would definitely be subject to scrutiny.

Chris: So that issue I view as highly suspect, and even if sourced from LRH notes, it’s an RTRC/DM abomination.

Not so. Just to shine a little more light on this, it was an HCOB on the original OT VIII course, from the original LRH materials compiled and issued by Ray Mithoff directly under instructions from LRH. (Around the same time he piloted the FPRD with LRH … should I consider the original 1984 FPRD an RTC abomination too?) Plenty of witnesses. CO$ lawyer Moxon sought to establish copyright during the Fishman Affidavits, then later claimed it a forgery for PR reasons when it became apparent the issue was going to see the public light of day. Jesse Prince around the same time brought this HCOB to RTC/DM’s (He never saw it before) attention who subsequently arbitrarily had it removed from the course … late 80’s, possibly early 90s.

It was not sourced from LRH notes, LRH wrote the HCOB and had it issued along with the other materials of the VIII course.

To me, that HCOB is totally LRH writing style, I have no reservations about that, it indicates and makes perfect sense to me.

Then why the need to revise it twice more (under Jeff Walker and again under Miscavige & Mithoff)? The second revision was what got Walker canned, or was a major part of his being declared. It produced overt products. There’s missing data or something out for the level to be revised again and again.

Now, having said all that, perhaps I’m thinking of a different issue than the one you’re speaking of – i.e., I’m misduplicating you here. There is indeed one valid OT VIII issue that came out late 1969 that was issued to OT VIII. However, that still doesn’t explain the reason for whole revisions of the level.

Re the FPRD, some do consider it that, as XDN covers the area quite well also (although not for Clears or above). But, it aligns with basic data and seems to work, so I use it. I guess I’ll wait until I’m through NOTs and the original OT levels to see what VIII is all about. Hopefully by that time I’ll have done some further training as well: on the lineup: Power and XDN – hopefully this year; the PDC and PRD, not necessarily in that order; a re-do of the VIII course, then a re-do of the SHSBC. And somewhere in there, finishing up the OEC.

Chris: Then why the need to revise it twice more (under Jeff Walker and again under Miscavige & Mithoff)? The second revision was what got Walker canned, or was a major part of his being declared. It produced overt products. There’s missing data or something out for the level to be revised again and again.

Good points you are bringing up.

First of all that VIII Series Student Briefing has nothing whatsoever to with any revisions which had occurred at a much latter date. It was written by LRH before he even completed OT VII and forms no procedure in OT VIII. Secondly, the revision also had no bearing on the above reference. Any OT VIII revisions subsequently is a another topic discussion, and we don’t have any data about that. Ray Mithoff at some 1984/85 Freewinds reging event stated he had received the OT VIII materials from LRH and was preparing them for delivery.

Now, speculating about OT VIII. The original LRH issue of that course upon Maiden Voyage release had a lot pre-OTs such as George White having received tremendous wins from that level, even refusing to return for a supposed repair handling as he felt nothing needed repairs. According to him OT VIII were just a few simple steps.

In or around 2006 Geir Isene completed OT VIII … also just a few simple steps, seems they had restored the course back to the original. Why? Was it maybe because too many people were incomplete on their OT VII were enrolled on VIII? Did they perhaps squirrel up the original OT VIII course in order to solve an incorrect problem at the time? Later on thorough Solo NOTs EP checks were implemented as Ronit Charney can attest to to ensure the level was fully complete which did not exist in the early days. Whatever ‘unusual solution’ marching order DM gave to either of the Cl XIIs occurred at a much later point, DM himself being completely clueless even about the existence of that Student Briefing HCOB.

Lots of people had been saying something was wrong with the original OT VIII course. Was it really though? Or were previous steps incomplete resulting in what had often been described as a borderline catastrophe. If I go by what George White and Isene Geir had stated about the procedure of the course, almost 20 apart, I’d say it was pretty much the same course.

Chris: There is indeed one valid OT VIII issue that came out late 1969 that was issued to OT VIII. However, that still doesn’t explain the reason for whole revisions of the level.

None of the materials on the OT VIII or anywhere else state anything about any OT VIII revision. Except for my speculation in the paragraph above, I have no data about it. The Student Briefing is a 1980 HCOB, and I also have the 1969 one. I can send it to you.

Hi! I’m Clear and have done all three Ls. I’ve been off lines since 2009 and am considering getting back into auditing and moving up the bridge. There is something you just said that has rekindled that purpose but I have a misunderstanding. You said, “I feel one could possibly get buried if the Solo NOTs case remains unhandled by the time of passing away and join the ranks of that what had been handling on that level.” I don’t want you to reveal any confidential information but could you please elaborate by what you mean by “get burried” and “join the ranks of that what had been handling on that level.”

If only the regges back in the day had pushed this point in every reg cycle. Not that you’d have to sell training in every cycle, but to keep people’s attention on eventually reporting in for their next course. I suspect there would be a lot more training done.

It was like that in the 70s, Paul; in fact, in many large “training orgs”, being only a pc was looked upon as a disability. lol

I also remember bursts of it in the 80s – I recall one day in my org when I was a supervisor and the ED regged all day long and we put something like 12 people on major Academy courses in that one day. So a lot of it depended on what the execs perceived as important (which should be the state of the Academy, foremost). IMO, it probably changed when GI came to be the main stat in an org, because it was pushed by Int Management (probably taking cues from DM and others in that camp) down through the CLOs and into the orgs via the EDs. PDC (reflective of the true products of an org: audited pcs and trained students) was relegated to just some afterthought as an indicator of the health of the org.

Here’s a site with an excellent synopsis of what happened to training:

Personally as in my own opinion why training fell out is because the Orgs began to promote to a lot of lunatics who just happened to have a lot of money and had no interest in helping others.

(see definition of “lunatic” in admin dictionary.)

Also as I wrote earlier. Tax Exemption became a blessing that became a curse as the greedy guts in the IAS and other money making scams like the “Super Power Building” which later became “Ideal Orgs” could promote to the above the pie in the sky idea that if they turned over their wallet and credits cards that by doing so they were somehow “building a better world” with their “Tax Deductible Donations”.

Seems elitist like to believe that total BS.

Also the BS that if they get over 10000 of their sorry asses onto Solo NOTs or New OT VII that the world will somehow change by their incompetent “auditing” on that level.

Worse they took the HCOB Training and OT and omitted sections that said one actually had to get *trained* so the public and many of the staff got the impression that if you just did the Solo Course with the GAT’s squirrelly drills that it was good enough.

Add to that the impossibly long runway known as “the Basics” and one can see that no body gets trained in the Orgs these days. Except for a select few who they will use to cater to the rich while everybody else will is redoing their purif or ends up on some endless Objective “Co-Audit” or “sec checking” on eligibility which could be called “enhanced interrogation” techniques under the rubric of “Golden Age of Tech phase II”.

Mise well put a sign in front of every org including the Mecca of Technical Deception *Bridge Out use alternate route* which is basically us 😉

Scary concept but we’re the Motley Crew who have been assigned by current events to get real Scientology back on the rails again since the Church has long since gone over the Cassandra Crossing:

Yup, many things occurred that contributed to the current scene on training. Being on the lines in a Class V Org – outside of SHs, THE place to train – I saw how it came down and it was indeed a shift in focus from the Academy (and consequently PDC) to WDAH and GI. That shifts the whole focus of the purpose of an org. The IAS and dishonest regging, et al, contributed to the shift; but it wasn’t until the focus was pushed to GI and the HGC – in violation of LRH policy – that the Academy and training became relegated to the garbage dump. Then the crows and vultures (IAS, Ideal Org pgm, etc.) swooped down for the pickings.

The link I supplied was an eval done by some very highly-trained long-time auditors and C/Ses and gives a basic understanding of “What happened to training?”

BTW per my own independent stat eval the exact point the training stats collapsed was when the Golden Age of Tech was introduced.

Based on the so called “why” that the “blind were leading the blind”.

Indicating a wrong why is good place to start if you want to
crash stats.

Also incorporating a bunch of squirrelly drills into Auditor training.

As Ron says in HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 APRIL AD 15 Issue II (written the same day as The Hidden Data Line):

DRILLS, ALLOWED
(Dir of Exams must check out this Pol Ltr on the above Hats and put on their Status Check Sheet for Directors)
The only allowed Practical drills on any Scientology Course including PE are:
1. Modified Comm Course for PE.
2. Original Comm Course TRs 0-4.
3. Original Upper Indoc TRs.
4. E-Meter Drills contained in Book of E-Meter Drills.
5. Dissemination Drills when I write and release them.
NO other practical drills of any kind will be permitted.
Other Practical Drills are abolished. Reasons: They consume time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases. I did not develop or authorize these drills and have now seen that they teach alter-is of easy processes. They are not needed. They make poor auditors. I have just reviewed this matter thoroughly and have traced several training failures to these Wild cat Drills. Further, I traced several failed cases on course to them.
Somewhere along the line somebody went mad inventing “drills” and “TRs”. If this is permitted to continue, we will no longer turn out good auditors. The standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years.

Even so as you can see on the website they were still making some auditors. Not really any good ones like back in the day but still….

What really lowered the boom which isn’t covered in the site since I think it only goes to ’05 was as I wrote the so called “Basics” which could also be called Mission Impossible (to train) which basically turned Scientologists on org lines into a bunch of philosophical book worms swimming and pretty much drowning in the total significance of the subject.

I remember way back being called by CSI’s call in unit asking me why I hadn’t availed myself of the Basics and I told the person who contacted me straight up that the “Basics” doesn’t make auditors.

And get this….

She told me that the Orgs objective these days was no longer to make auditors but to make “Scientologists”.

As if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

Obviously the chick has a huge crashing like as in over the frickin’ cliff or as in the scene portrayed earlier mis-u what the word “Scientologist” means.

She probably does, RV. She definitely didn’t know the product of orgs, per what you say. However, there is value in knowing one’s basics. Outside of introductory courses and reading basic books (as used to be on the HQS), it’s usually after one has become an auditor or C/S. For instance, as you know, a C/S has to know the basic books cold.

Re the point of collapse of training stats, I disagree. While there may have been a secondary collapse when GAT was released (and it wasn’t immediate), DM was able to issue GAT because he had already screwed the training pooch through slow, methodical replacement and squirreling of LRH tech. It was already on the downward slope prior to GAT (even the SHSBC at ASHO was already a limp wagon by then). GAT was just his coup de grace.

RV — not sure where you are getting your information from, as DM was unquestionably on/over tech lines before GAT.

There are a vast number of tech bulletin revisions ordered by him back in the early 90’s and late 80’s and I remember personally being involved in proofreading the “new’ tech volumes with the RTRC staff who had been up for weeks with virtually no sleep, under orders of DM as we had to get the volumes produced for the upcoming event.

And we cannot forget Key to Life and Life Orientation Course, which were a blanket C/S that every person was to do, regardless of what course they were currently on, or what their training line up was.

And then there is also the subject of Ethics/PTS/disconnection, which DM was intimately involved in.

Yes, Ray Mithoff was the Snr C/S Int, but he was being run directly by DM.

The international stats (GI and VSD) started a significant and decades long downtrend at the end of the 80’s and beginning of the 90’s. Continued steadily through to the mid-2000’s (last time I saw international stats) and in the last 10 years has not ever recovered to those earlier 70’s and 80’s levels.

I agree with Chris. GAT was not the point of crash per stats, it just continued that downtrend that had already started at the beginning of the 90’s and kept those stats heading for the floor.

As I was saying Miscavige didn’t get onto tech lines until the late 80’s (APB) early ’90’s.

RTRC was already making alterations to the tech long before the Newer Tech Volumes. Some of them as I pointed out earlier were totally unworkable.

Such as running E Purps Narrative or only putting heavy druggies on the Scn DRD when they needed the full DRD prior to Grades and let’s not forget the total omission of the original Advanced Courses from the Grade Chart since ’82.

All Miscavige did from his position as “COB RTC” is accelerate the squirreling with the introduction of GAT.

That said.

I personally did a stat analysis of all comps in that period using the Auditor Mag and Advance and the fact was that there were still VIs and VIIs being made during the period from the early 80’s to the mid 90’s.

Not as many as in the early to mid 70’s but as I wrote completions at those levels were still limping along.

Also after the new Levels Checksheets were issued in the late 70’s as part of the end of endless training the stats for IVs was actually increasing and peaked when the prices were dropped in the early ’80’s.

Which in my opinion did more for the Stats in the early ’80’s then what Int Management was claiming to have done.

That factor plus the addition of the VSD stat, Service Completion Awards and the new Pro TRs did more to improve the stats internationally then anything else that management was doing.

Not to mention CMUs promotion of DMSMH and Dianetic book seminars.

In fact management seemed to be sabotaging these actions more then promoting them with unreal cross orders and programs.

Like insisting on putting in a fully functioning 3 Div VI when in many Orgs there were barely enough staff for an Org Pgm #1.

I was *there* too Lana.

By the way the world of Scientology didn’t totally revolve around the Int Base at that time.

RV, you can repeat the same things over and over but it does not make them true. The stats I am talking about are the actual International Scn stats – not an analysis of magazine completions.

I am not going to debate on this. You (or anyone else) cannot evaluate or make assumptions about the causes of things without actually using the real statistics (all of them) and take into account each echelon and their involvement (or lack of) in the situation.

I have no presumption that the world of Scientology revolved around the Int base, nor do I consider that because I was “there” I know it all — so don’t insinuate that with me, as it gets under my skin and is frankly just BS.

I worked at the Int base for 13 years — and whilst I know that you insist that DM is not the cause of the Scn troubles (who not a why), it does not negate the fact that he DID cross order and illegally manage the Int management lines from the late 80’s onwards — either personally, or through another.

Actually the stats of various mags particularly the majors from ASHO, AO and Flag gives a pretty accurate picture of whether or not Orgs are getting the product of Scn which is Auditors made and PC and Pre OT Completions.

See the RED on How to Raise Stats.

I agree that having all stats at all levels of the entire Scn Network are more accurate but the fact is that INCOMM has not been reporting accurate stats since the early ’90’s and Int Management began developing er…novel means of reporting stats like “a Class IV auditor made every two minutes” or “trillions read about Scn on the Internet” or “Billions of Board Feet for Ideal Orgs” or some other bat shit crazy “stat”.

Many of them false like GI which mainly goes to books, lectures, meters and memberships (HCO Book Account per Policy) and straight donations (which are in total violation of policy particularly the one entitled Vital Data on Promotion) these days instead of Scientology services.

Also I am not negating the fact that Miscavige did cross order Scn management but the fact is that management in turn was accepting illegal and destructive orders in violation of the policies Orders Illegal and Cross and Orders Query of and failed to apply the policy on Staff Member Reports.

Also failed to hold the Form of the Org per the Org Board.

Not to mention the fact that they allowed Miscavige to issue orders as “COB RTC” in violation of RTC’s corporate articles and bylaws.

Scn Boards are supposed to operate by consensus of its members not based on the dictatorial directives of one member.

You’re damn right I don’t hang with the blame Miscavige crowd like Marty, Mike and all the others have gone the blame Miscavige route.

As far as I’m concerned Miscavige is just a symptom or indicator of corrupt management structure who seized control of the organization falsely giving Ron and Scientologists the impression that they were “saving it”.

Geezuz, RV. You need some toilet paper? After that bunch of bull-pucky, I figure you gotta need something to clean the crap up. Biggest pile of dung and side-stepping obfuscation and no-answers I’ve seen. LOL

BUT, you get points for obliquely agreeing with Lana that Miscavige was cross-ordering and subverting the products of the orgs; and not just ASHO, AOLA, and Flag, but all AOs, all SHs, and all Orgs around the planet.

As far as I can see Lana wasn’t asking me a question that I could directly answer but stating her opinion which cause me to respond in kind with my own.

Also calling my response “crap” ain’t nuttin’ but ad hominem.

I’d just like to add that the subversion you’ve noted was cause by others who followed his insane “orders” in violation of Policy. As per the Orders Illegal and Cross.

This includes especially people like Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder who now blame Miscavige for the damage that they knowingly caused by either following those insane orders or originating a few of their own that were just as insane.

I know you seem to have an aversion to this word but I’ll state it anyway.

What happened to the Church began as a criminal conspiracy. Miscavige is just a product of it.

He would have never gotten as far as far as he has gotten without their support.

And here’s another policy that those who seized control of the Organization violated either intentionally or unintentionally by allowing him to assume full control of the Organization and that is Ethics the Design of.

Robin, when I say DM, I usually mean “DM & Company”, just to clarify (although he was instrumental in setting it all up). Sorry for any obfuscation. And I’m not blaming him (not solely, anyway). Just pointing it out.

However, Miscavige was on the lines back then. He was on the lines in ’82 even. There’s already enough reports to indicate he was withholding data, perverting or altering comm, etc. that we know he was exerting control back then. Also, one cannot dismiss the catastrophic impact that KTL had on training auditors. It stalled it, and that was pre-GAT by a few years. And as someone mentioned, removing the PRD from the line-up threw a wrench into the works as well. Those BOTWO and other courses and all the alterations to the tech, they all contributed to diluted and watered-down tech, and that further contributed to poor quality in Academies. This caused the downfall of training. GAT was late on the chain, although, as you point out, it sealed it’s fate. But it had already begun long before GAT. If you read “The Sabotage of Training – A Chronology” on page 8 of the link I posted on “What Happened To Training?”, it gives a good chronology of the demise of training, beginning with the MH conference back in 1982.

The power push or putsch or SO Junta or more accurately *mutiny* was a cooperative effort that included our old friends Marty and Mike plus a few others like Broeker, Franks and Stormy Normy who seized control of the Organization from BODCSC under the false flag of “saving the organization”.

Despite their….er….efforts.

Academy training was actually quite good with the introduction of Pro TRs and the original Tech Films.

Even the one featuring DM1 on E-Meter reads wasn’t that bad and had less prior and latent reads in it then the last one I saw which used a Stimulator instead of a live PC.

Sure I agree that RED 175 was a good idea and should have been done for those who needed it but Ron himself canceled the PRD is a prerec. to Auditor Training by issuing Fast Flow Reinstated.

Not all students would need the PRD and those who did would have been picked up on the PCRD which was still an available option at the time.

In my opinion it is like the blanket C/S for KTL/LOC.

Anyway in my opinion Tech was still pretty good up until the late ’80’s and then started to limp in the early ’90’s and crashed out of sight after GAT which totally destroyed tech as far as I was concerned with the arbitrary “cancellation” of certs etc.

Now you can totally blame Miscavige for that because it was his ludicrous and fatuous “eval” with that idiotically insane “why” that the “blind were leading the blind” that totally wiped out tech.

Before that there were arbitraries added that may have slowed down training but GAT totally wiped it out.

Notice that someone like Miscavige introduces something that seems like a good idea.

Like drilling.

Sure nothing wrong with that. Anyone who would say that there was must be an “SP”.

“Basics” I mean who other then an “SP” would argue against having the students study their “basics”.

Well Ron for one would in the policy on Booming the Org Through Training and the earlier one on Drills Allowed.

Whatever basic books an auditor needs to study and lectures he needs to listen to to do that level are right on the course which are on check sheets personally approved by the Ol’man himself.

What more do you need?

The “Basics” at best is an Additive and at worst is a suppressive stop to training auditors.

Same with GAT.

SPs seem to come up what seem to be a good idea at the time but in reality are destructive in the long term.

Such as “Ideal Orgs” etc.

Yet there seems to be this group agreement to perpetuate them which Ron talks about in KSW.

RV: “Sure I agree that RED 175 was a good idea and should have been done for those who needed it but Ron himself canceled the PRD is a prerec. to Auditor Training by issuing Fast Flow Reinstated.”

Robin, in what issue did Ron cancel the PRD? (I cannot find any PL or HCOB entitled “Fast Flow Reinstated”. There also is no LRH ED affirming what you stated.) What LRH issue are you referring to in your comment here?

Well, first, LRH never cancelled the PRD as a pre-req to the Academy levels. So that was a bit misleading, or at least, not up to your usual “standards” of exactness. Second, HCOPL 31 Aug 74, Fast Flow Training Reinstated, was actually cancelled by LRH, just an FYI. Thirdly, the HCOB you’re quoting (13 Aug 72RB) is an RTRC revision of LRH’s 1972 issue. Didn’t you just get through stating that RTRC was the “why for the decline of the tech in the late ’80’s and early ’90’s”? So why would you now follow their altered (IMO) HCOB?

Here’s what Ron stated in the original issue:

“So that there is NO question about what is meant by FAST FLOW TRAINING:

ANY STUDENT WHO HONESTLY COMPLETES THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN OR PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN IS THEREAFTER DESIGNATED A “FAST FLOW STUDENT”.”

Per HCOB 4 Apr 72, Primary Rundown, M1WC is done as part of the PRD. So all bases covered.

So, when we talk tech, let’s be accurate and not put words in LRH’s mouth, hey? 😉

I agree that the RTRC version saying it was “superseded” (implying it is “old”, “not used anymore”) definitely confused things and muddied the waters. That’s why I’m a leetle leery of these “Assisted by” and “RTRC” issues. However, per the above issue, LRH definitely says it was cancelled.

Those students who have not had Method One and Student Hat, or a Primary Run-down or Primary Correction must starrate, clay demo and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat (or Basic Study Manual Hatting). It is much faster to do Method One and Student Hat or the PRD or PCRD first.

HCOB 13 Aug 72RA (Rev. 30 Aug. 83) Fast Flow Training

PREREQUISITES (72R)

Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown are required for Levels O to I V or above and for FEBC. They are not required for HSDC or the many other courses below these levels.

NON PRDs

Those students who have not had a Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown must starrate, clay demo, twin and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat.

Those students who have not had Method One and Student Hat, or a Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown, must star-rate, clay demo and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat (or Basic Study Manual for staff hatting).

It is much faster to do Method One and Student Hat or the PRD or PCRD first.

Those students who have not had Method One and Student Hat, or a Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown, must star-rate, clay demo and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat (or
Basic Study Manual for staff hatting).

It is much faster to do Method One and Student Hat or the PRD or PCRD first.

So that there is NO question about what is meant by FAST FLOW TRAINING:

ANY STUDENT WHO HONESTLY COMPLETES THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN OR PRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN IS THEREAFTER DESIGNATED A “FAST FLOW STUDENT”.

The Fast Flow Student passes courses by attestation at Certs and Awards to the effect that he (a) has enrolled properly on the course, (b) has paid for the course, (c) has studied and understands the materials, (d) has done the drills, (e) can produce the result required in the materials.

The student is given a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE. This looks like any other certificate but is not gold sealed and has Provisional plainly on it.

In the case of an Auditor, an Interneship or formal auditing experience is required. When actual honest evidence is presented to C&A that he has demonstrated that he can produce flubless results his Certificate is VALIDATED with a gold seal and is a permanent certificate.

In Administrative Courses or course of any kind not having to do with auditing, the same procedure is followed and a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE is issued by C&A.

The person must now demonstrate that he can apply the materials studied by producing an honest, actual statistic in the materials studied. He presents this evidence to C&A and receives a VALIDATION gold seal on his Certificate.

Provisional Certificates EXPIRE after one year if not Validated.

The Fast Flow Student studies within his knowledge of study tech. He is assisted by Supervisors. Any Word Clearing action needed can be done on him. He can be sent to Qual and Crammed. He can be starrated and made to clay demo by the Supervisor.

He does not however have to have a twin, he does not automatically starrate starrate items, he does not have to have an examination.

The Fast Flow System makes for very rapid training. This becomes possible due to the development of the Primary Rundown and Primary Correction Rundown.

PREREQUISITES

Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown are required for Levels O to I V or above and for FEBC. They are not required for HSDC or the many other courses below these levels.

NON PRDs

Those students who have not had a Primary Rundown or Primary Correction Rundown must starrate, clay demo, twin and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat.

It is much faster to do the PRD or PCRD first.

DRUG CASES

Where a drug case cannot be gotten through Method One Word Clearing due to case, it is usual to give him the Drug Rundown first as per HCO B of 25 Oct 71 Issue II, “The Special Drug RD”.

The short co-audit version is contained in HCOB 15 July 71 Issue III, C/S Series 48R.

Where for any reason the person cannot get the Drug Rundown HE MAY BE ENROLLED ON THE DIANETICS COURSE, BECOME A DIANETIC AUDITOR and obtain the Drug Rundown through CO-AUDIT on Course.

The Dianetic Course in this instance is done with the full Student Hat requirements.

DESIGNATION

The FAST FLOW STUDENT should be given a blue lapel award and wear it in Class. It should say FFS on it in black letters.

This gives the green light to rapid and effective completion of courses for the SUPER-LITERATE.

So that there is no question about what is meant by Fast Flow Training:

Any student who honestly completes the Student Hat and Method One Word Clearing or the Primary Rundown or the Primary Correction Rundown is thereafter designated a “Fast Flow Student”.

The Fast Flow Student passes courses by attestation at Certs and Awards to the effect that he has (a) enrolled properly on the course (b) has paid for the course (c) has studied and understands the materials (d) has done the drills (e) can produce the result required in the materials.

The student is given a provisional certificate. This looks like any other certificate but is not gold sealed and has Provisional plainly on it.

In the case of an Auditor, an Internship or formal auditing experience is required. When actual honest evidence is presented to C&A that he has demonstrated that he can produce flubless results his Certificate is validated with a gold seal and is a permanent certificate.

In Administrative Courses or course of any kind not having to do with auditing, the same procedure is followed and a provisional certificate is issued by C&A.

The person must now demonstrate that he can apply the materials studied by producing an honest, actual statistic in the materials studied. He presents this evidence to C&A and receives a validation gold seal on his Certificate.

Provisional Certificates expire after one year if not Validated.

The Fast Flow Student studies within his knowledge of study tech. He is assisted by Supervisors. Any Word Clearing action needed can be done on him. He can be sent to Qual and Crammed. He can be starrated and made to clay demo by the Supervisor.

He does not however have to have a twin on theory, he does not automatically starrate starrate items, he does not have to have an examination.

The Fast Flow System makes for very rapid training. This becomes possible due to the developments of Method One Word Clearing and the Student Hat, the Primary Rundown and the Primary Correction Rundown.

Those students who have not had Method One and Student Hat, or a Primary Run-down or Primary Correction must starrate, clay demo and go through the materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat (or Basic Study Manual Hatting).
It is much faster to do Method One and Student Hat or the PRD or PCRD first.

DRUG CASES

Where a drug case cannot be gotten through Method One Word Clearing due to case, it is usual to get him through the Purification Rundown, Objectives and in some cases a Drug Rundown. (REF: HCOB 12 NOV 81RA GRADE CHART STREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES & HCOB 4 APR. 72R PRIMARY RUNDOWN)

DESIGNATION

The Fast Flow Student should be given a blue lapel award and wear it in Class. It should say FFS on it in black letters.

This gives the green light to rapid and effective completion of courses for the Fast Flow Student.

There were two more changes worth mentioning, one more prominent than the other:
The Primary Rundown was in heavy use in St. Hill up to about 1976. The course room was filled with piles of Dictionaries, like New World Book and others.
Also, running of the mid-OT 2 “Basic-Basic” was promoted last in Advance #37 in 1975. Somewhere after that point the running of this Level was reduced to a small “appetizer” of about 1 % or less of the Level. I believe that both changes changed the quality in staff and public.

Nor has relegating pre-reqs to Solo to just an HQS course and TRs. One should be at least a proficient NED auditor before going onto Solo. If not Class V.

Hey Lana, you were CMO PAC when I was doing my training at SHO and AOLA (NED, BC, etc., and VIII). I’m sure I would have run into you as I used to go over to PAC once in a while to grab a pc or folder or something. 😀

RV: Even when the original Solo courses Part I and II came out the Solo Auditor had to audit someone else on ruds which was always good for a laugh in the AO FES unit…..

Back in the early 90’s, you had to be at least a Level 0 auditor to get onto the Solo I where you flew ruds on another. Prior to that, checksheets called for training up to Class IV. I had no idea anyone could get onto Solo I without any previous auditor training.

4. ARC SW and Grades O-IV each run to full EP with ability gained for each grade with good success stories. (All Expanded Grades Processes run, if necessary, to achieve this. The exception being if the person went Clear on NED prior to completing Expanded Grades.)

5. Has gone Clear on NED auditing, with CCRD done and the state of Clear verified-and has completed the Sunshine Rundown.

OR

Has completed Expanded Grades through Exp. Grade IV and has completed NED auditing (but without having gone Clear on NED).

What were the pre-reqs as given on HCO PL 28 Jan 82R, Solo Auditor’s Course Part 1 (as mentioned in this issue)? Before I say I highly doubt LRH would lower the standards to having completed just an HQS course, I’d like to see the other issue. Personally, it goes against what he says in other issues, such as Training and OT and the reasons for failures on the OT levels.

(This checksheet was redesigned by LRH to include basic books, theory, L & N and more thorough meter trilling. It is now possible to make a far superior solo auditor than ever before.)

PART ONE

(The Hubbard Solo Auditor Course has been divided into two parts to enable Scientologists to get started on the route to Solo and OT, in Class IV orgs. This enables more Clears to make faster progress up the Bridge. Part Two of this course and OT Preparation, are done at SH orgs or higher orgs.)

NAME:________________

DATE ________________

STARTED:____________

ORG:________________

DATE ________________

COMPLETED: _________

PREREQUISITES:

1. The HQS Course, or Class IV.

2. The Basic Study Manual Course or Student Hat.

3. A TRs Course.

4. ARC SW and Grades 0-IV each run to full EP with Ability Gained for each Grade with good Success Stories. (All Expanded Grades processes run, if necessary, to achieve this.) (The exception being if the person went Clear on NED prior to completing expanded grades.)

5. Has gone Clear on NED auditing, with DCSI done and the State of Clear verified. Has completed the SUNSHINE RUNDOWN.

6. Or, having completed Expanded Grades through Exp. Grade IV and having completed NED (but without having gone Clear on NED) the student may start the SOLO AUDITOR COURSE, Part One in a Class IV org (or Class 0 – IV Academy courses, prior to the Solo Auditor Course) and then go on to Part Two in an SH org, in order to be able to solo audit on the Clearing Course in an AO.

Thanks for this link Chris, this is an excellent evaluation of what has gone wrong and a fantastic reference source of LRHs policy that Dave has seen fit to alter. Did I say alter, I should have said SEVERELY F——D UP.

Many thanks to those who put it together!

I particularly loved this LRH quote:

“Auditors are like race horses. There’s hardly anybody ever stands around and rubs down an auditor, but they ought to. They ought to. They ought to stand around and rub them down, and pat them on the shoulder and feed ’em oats, because the truth of the matter is, they only really fade out of your line-up because they have not been given adequate care and attention from an organization point of view.”

The mid and late 70s was my era, but I never saw what you’re describing. Not arguing it didn’t occur. I’m sure it did, just not where I was. Of course, we had the usual “limping” org with low staff pay, etc.

Consider as well: PCs come in, get their auditing and go home. Auditors in training spend weeks at a time in cooperative effort with people like them. And I’d expect the more of them, the more of a close-knit field you’d get, and the more of a “family” type atmosphere you’d get in an org. And probably a field which promotes the org more heavily. All great wins for an org. We’ve all heard the stories about great times people had at orgs like that (missions, too).

Funny, PdComps was a direct response to orgs being run purely on GI. And then (IMO) as time went on, PDC was polluted by all kinds of rules that meant PDC were lost for days or weeks at a time if you didn’t have a single-hatted or posted Qual Sec or whatever the silly requirements were (I don’t remember). And in order to keep PDC going, orgs would post some cross-eyed drooler as the official whatever, effectively gaming the system anyway. What a fiasco.

Well, perhaps the smaller orgs were limping, although I know some that weren’t. But I was speaking of the big orgs, like NY, Toronto, LA, ASHO, London, Amsterdam, etc. There was a huge training boom in the early to mid 70s due to both an FEBC program and a Class VIII program that coincided in many of these orgs, with Class VIIIs on as Qual Sec, ED, etc. Of course, I only caught the tail end, although I did witness Toronto in ’74.

Re PaidComps, I don’t see that stat as being a direct response to orgs being run on GI at all. In fact, that stat was reflective of completions, with training given a much higher scoring. Of course, GI might also rise on re-signs (doubling the PDC stat), but on packages, no, there would be no coincident GI. Per HCOB 14 June 77, Paid Comps Simplified:

“The overall condition of an org is based on the statistic of “FULLY PAID COMPLETION ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACCEPTABLE SUCCESS STORY WITH ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR THE LAST SERVICE AS A BONUS FOR A FULLY PAID SIGN-UP FOR THE NEXT OR ADDITIONAL SERVICE, ALL AS VERIFIED BY HCO.” This is the statistic of the CO or ED of the org and is determined by five basic categories of service explained below. These categories and the paid completions points awarded for each are:

P.S. The posts of HAS, Qual Sec, Recruiter and SSO are important posts in an org, for its survival. Perhaps they were included to light a fire under the EC’s collective butt. I definitely don’t look on it as pollution.

Agreed PDC is a good measure of the an org’s aggregate production. I can’t say for sure, but it seems to me that in the 50s and perhaps part of the 60s, the stat of an org was GI. And then PDC was introduced because GI produced the wrong response. Seems I’ve read this in a PL somewhere, but I can’t be sure. In the same fashion, C/Bs as the stat for Treasury for a long time, until someone cognited that was really FP/Ad Council’s stat. Then Treasury was switched to CC/BP (credit collected, bills paid). I know that was the case, because it was going on while I was Treas Sec.

There were several problems with “no PDC” penalties. Agreed the posts mentioned were very important to an org’s survival. But if you put qualifiers on the stat like that, one of two things was going to happen. First, integrity would win out, and you would see no PDC for months or years, and no way to know the real products. Or, second, you’d see orgs game the system by essentially lying to management about someone being posted in those posts. You’d see PDC alright, but the people in those posts could very well be nearly tree stumps. We had this exact thing in our org. An ED with zero PDC was FOLO-bait.

Now, the real underlying problem was that if you didn’t have enough qualified people to cover those posts in the first place, you didn’t really have an org. You had more like a mission or a city office or something. If you follow the PLs on posting from the top down and tech/admin ratio, you wouldn’t really have anything resembling an org until there were a fair number of people on board. And this was a big part of the admin problem for decades. Not only were there not enough people, but they weren’t qualified, never got qualified, and they were typically managed from FOLO on a bypass of the ED. Hence, anemic orgs that stayed that way. Which was demonstrably the case for years. And as someone once pointed out, the back door in orgs was shut tight, whereas it should have been wide open to allow for getting rid of the droolers. In our org, sparsely staffed, we had a full time letter reg. Why? Because the guy’s acid/drug case was so severe, he couldn’t be relied upon to do anything higher than Letter Reg. Nice guy, but he was useless.

Worse yet, it was common that, if you finally came up with a gem of a staff member, he/she was immediately on the SO’s radar and would eventually be quicksilvered (stolen from an org to go uplines without proper qualified replacement).

Or perhaps, “one helluva NON-org”. I think the most money I ever took home in a week from there was $30.00. Usually more like $15.00.

Don’t get me wrong. For all the injustice and abuse I got, I didn’t and don’t have a grudge against anyone there. There just weren’t enough of them, they weren’t qualified for what they were doing, and all were afraid of FOLO. And from what I’ve heard there were many many orgs at the time in the same boat. Years later, I personally witnessed the same conditions at Pasadena and Tampa. Interestingly, Albuquerque Mission (a feeder to my org in Austin when I was there) did well.

Water under the bridge now, though. The next time we get a chance to play that game, hopefully we will have learned from these experiences and do a better job (me too).

Paul, my main org seems similar to the one you refer to. Its stats on producing Clears and Auditors were woefull. I wrote to Ron on the SO1 line about it when he asked why I was leaving. Its why I really enjoy reading about the successful orgs, as orgs actually applying Tech and Policy.

This is an area I need to clarify for myself as to the workability of a massive command structure of the SO. We had some great and talented staff and an ED trained on OEC FEBC who was a PRD grad, but who was constantly bypassed by the Folo with daily orders at least 6 foot in length to the various Div heads

The poor bastard, I didnt like him at the time, but looking back I can see the pressure he must have been under.

Just so. FOLO/CLO should have been managing on a longer time span (as covered in policy) and never bypassed the ED.

I’ve maintained for years that orgs were “over-managed”. FOLO/CLO should have been much more selective about who they hired and who they kept on. This would have made for a much smaller staff. Orgs didn’t need all the management and cross-ordering they got. Plus, middle-management was woefully untrained and unhatted for the jobs they were doing. They developed an internal culture (“this is the way we’ve always done it”) that heavily violated many well-known PLs on how you ran and managed orgs. The result was a heaping mess all over the world. There were some isolated successes, but I suspect most orgs suffered and limped along for years. Missions, by contrast, barely managed at all from the outside, often did quite well.

I also think the subject of Stats needs a complete overhaul and the emphasis put on the product instead of the stat per policy! In actual fact, false stats became the order of the day, to the point of, now, its pretty well the only sort of stat counted!

Preeecisely. You would have thought that all future life on the planet depended on your stats right now this week. Very silly and very short sighted.

If I were an ED, I don’t think I’d even worry about the stats. I’d counsel each of my executives and staff to concentrate on the subproducts needed to get the product of each staff member. Concentrate on ways to build and drive those subproducts forward so they eventually create the product you’re looking for. If needed, staticize those subproducts and concentrate on those stats rather than the main one. But concentrate on the subproducts and work as a team to get them (because a lot of times those subproducts are in another division).

All this is well covered in policy, but no one appears to have read the policies or paid them sufficient attention.

If you define neurosis as all attention on the present and none on the past or future (as LRH did), then management (at nearly all levels) was and is neurotic. If you’re a wise manager, you concentrate on stat trends, not the single point of a stat this week. (Also per policy.)

The saying, “build it and they will come” would be better stated as, “create and gather the subproducts and the main product will take care of itself”.

Actually, out here in old South Africa where the Zulus live, I think there are some cleared Zulus that are also cleared advertising men (he said sarcastically). But I get your point – in fact, I’d rather have the training any day than auditing. I was one of the lucky ones that trained from the get go via a mission that had the intention of making Scientologists rather than earning revenue, and only later did I have auditing. The training stays with me every minute of my life, even though I never venture into an org any more.

From C/S series 95 “Failed” Cases-26 oct 75 “It takes hard sweating work to get good enough to be a real auditor. It takes hours and hours of TRs the hard way. It takes a high degree of honesty that includes never faking and going by MUs in his materials,always being honest in his auditing reports, constant practice with his metering, drills with the tone scale and a large degree of self-discipline.
It isn’t talent that makes a good auditor…
The source of out-tech is only laziness and dishonesty……..The route is failure…..Don’t be a psychologist or psychiatrist. That was their route.
In the hands of a thoroughly trained and drilled auditor, Scientology works and works splendidly.

Popular Articles

Search by Topic, Author or Tags

Search

Article topic listing

Article topic listing

What is Milestone Two?

Milestone Two is a community of people who want to see that the LRH aims for Scientology are met.

There is no affiliation or connection with the Church of Scientology -- as Milestone Two operates wholly separate from such. In fact, the majority of Milestone Two's members are people who have been excommunicated by the Church of Scientology, or persons that have departed and are practicing Scientology outside of the Church. Many members are anonymous and provide their support for ongoing projects while still "under the radar".

You can get more details on Milestone Two at www.milestonetwo.org.

This blog and its articles are just a snap shot of the views and activities of Milestone Two members.